Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Koch
| Deutsche Bank National Trust Company |
| Paul R. Koch |
| 3:2022cv01524 |
| December 1, 2022 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Sarala V Nagala |
| S Dave Vatti |
| Truth in Lending |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Petition for Removal |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 20, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Set Deadline: Show Cause Response due by 2/6/2023. (Bozek, M.) |
Filing 16
ORDER granting #15 Motion for Extension of Time until February 6, 2023, to show cause why the Court should not remand this case to state court. The Court is highly unlikely to grant Defendant another extension of time. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 1/20/2023. (Rennie, Carolyn)
|
| Filing 15 Second MOTION for Extension of Time until February 6, 2023 14 Order on Motion for Extension of Time, Order on Motion to Amend/Correct, by Paul R. Koch. (Mendez, D) |
| Set Deadline: Show Cause Response due by 1/23/2023. (Bozek, M.) |
|
Filing 14
ORDER finding as moot #12 Motion for Extension of Time; granting #13 Motion for Extension of Time until January 23, 2023, to show cause why the Court should not remand this case to state court. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 1/3/2023. (Rennie, Carolyn)
|
| Filing 13 Amended Motion for Extension of Time, by Paul R. Koch. Responses due by 1/17/2023. (Mendez, D) |
| Filing 12 MOTION for Extension of Time for 30 days from Friday, December 23, 2022 to Monday, January 23, 2023, to file a response to the Honorable Court's Order to Show Cause, by Paul R. Koch. (Mendez, D) |
| Filing 11 NOTICE of Change of Address by Paul R. Koch (Barry, L) |
| Set Deadline: Show Cause Response due by 12/23/2022. (Bozek, M.) |
|
Filing 10
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Plaintiff has removed this housing action from state court. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that, if the Court determines at any time that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it must dismiss the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). In order for this Court to exercise subject matter jurisdiction, either (1) the plaintiff must set forth a colorable claim arising under the U.S. Constitution or a federal statute, thus invoking this Court's federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331; or (2) there must be complete diversity of citizenship between the plaintiff and the defendant and the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000 under 28 U.S.C. 1332. See DaSilva v. Kinsho Int'l Corp., 229 F.3d 358, 363 (2d Cir. 2000) (identifying the two categories of subject matter jurisdiction). Additionally, if an action is otherwise removable only on the basis of diversity jurisdiction under 1332, it may not be removed if a defendant is a citizen of the state in which the action was brought. 28 U.S.C. 1441(b)(2). Here, the action is for summary process and eviction and thus does not appear to present any federal claims. Indeed, wrongful eviction claims are generally matters of state law, not federal law. See Allied Manor Rd. LLC v. Berrios, No. 17CV2277WKFRML, 2017 WL 5558650, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 20, 2017) ("Wrongful eviction claims, whether for a temporary or final eviction, are state law claims over which this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction."). Moreover, if the basis for the removal is diversity jurisdiction, the case cannot be removed because Defendant is a citizen of Connecticut, where the action was initially brought. See U.S. Bank, N.A. as Trustee for Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities I Trust 2006-AC1, Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2006-AC1 v. Profeta, No. 3:18-cv-1710 (CSH), 2019 WL 2185725, at *5 (D. Conn. Mar. 26, 2019) ("Put simply, if any defendant is a citizen of Connecticut, the action may not be removed to the District of Connecticut."). Accordingly, by December 23, 2022, Plaintiff shall show cause why the Court should not remand this case to state court. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 12/12/2022. (Rennie, Carolyn)
|
| Filing 9 NOTICE TO COUNSEL/SELF-REPRESENTED PARTIES: Counsel or self-represented parties initiating or removing this action are responsible for serving all parties with attached documents and copies of #7 Protective Order, #4 Appearance Self Represented Party filed by Paul R. Koch, #1 Notice of Removal filed by Paul R. Koch, #8 Electronic Filing Order, #2 Notice (Other) filed by Paul R. Koch, #6 Order on Pretrial Deadlines. Signed by Clerk on 12/2/2022. (Attachments: #1 Standing Order On Removed Cases) (Mendez, D) |
|
Filing 8
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 12/1/2022. (Mendez, D)
|
|
Filing 7
STANDING PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 12/1/2022. (Mendez, D)
|
|
Filing 6
Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 1/30/2023. Discovery due by 6/2/2023. Dispositive Motions due by 7/7/2023. Signed by Clerk on 12/1/2022. (Mendez, D)
|
| Filing 5 Notice: Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1 and Local Rule 7.1, any nongovernmental corporate party must electronically file a disclosure statement that identifies any parent corporation and any publicly held corporation owning 10% or more of its stock or states that there is no such corporation. Such disclosure statement must be filed with a party's first appearance, pleading, petition, motion, response, or other request addressed to the Court and must be supplemented if any required information changes during the case. Signed by Clerk on 12/1/2022.(Imbriani, Susan) |
| Filing 4 Appearance Self Represented Party by Paul R. Koch (Imbriani, Susan) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE TO COUNSEL NOT ADMITTED TO THE BAR OF THE US DISTRICT COURT OF CONNECTICUT Re: Local Rule 83.1 Admission of Attorneys. The above captioned case has been received and filed in our court. Please see our Local Rule 83.1 regarding Admission of Attorneys that is available on our website at www.ctd.uscourts.gov. You will not be added to the case, nor will we accept further filings until you have complied with Local Rule 83.1. If you have any questions about this procedure, please contact the Clerk's Office. Signed by Clerk on 12/1/2022.(Imbriani, Susan) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE - State Court Notice of Removal by Paul R. Koch (Imbriani, Susan) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by Paul R. Koch from Stamford Superior Court, case number NWH-CV-19-6005016-S., filed by Paul R. Koch. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit)(Imbriani, Susan) |
| Filing fee received from Paul Koch: $ 402.00, receipt number 13376 (Imbriani, Susan) |
| Judge Sarala V. Nagala and Judge S. Dave Vatti added. (Oliver, T.) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Connecticut District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Koch | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Deutsche Bank National Trust Company | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Paul R. Koch | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
